Mission accomplished for Senate rivals in debate

April 15, 2012|Jack Colwell | Opinion

Each did what he needed most to do.

Now, after a civil debate, with no "oops" blunders or knockout blows, the focus will be back again on the negative TV ads in the race between Sen. Dick Lugar and his tea-party-backed challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, for the Republican nomination for senator.

Lugar, whose 80th birthday came April 4, needed to show viewers in the only debate of the campaign, that he is the same intelligent, thoughtful and knowledgeable senator who built a reputation as a statesman in serving state and nation for six terms.

He did.

Mourdock, still not well known throughout the state, needed to make a good impression for those getting a first look and undecided. He needed to avoid angry rhetoric of a tea party rally -- the tea party is with him anyway -- and come across as reasonable and respectful of Lugar.

He did.

Lugar did not have to agree to debate his challenger. Conventional political wisdom would be not to do so, not give a lesser known challenger all that exposure, not chance some silly debate mistake that would be pounced on by the news media, not risk the slight polling lead shown for Lugar.

But Lugar, unlike some other incumbents caught by surprise, has taken the challenge seriously from the start, not just assuming that nobody would believe all the negative attacks. Millions of dollars are being poured into Indiana by national groups seeking to defeat Lugar. And the Lugar campaign has hit back at negative TV with attacks of its own, not just playing defense.

Lugar strategists no doubt hoped that Mourdock would come across as some of the Republican candidates did in those snarling presidential debates. Mourdock refrained from that type of attack, wisely leaving that to the TV ad folks.

The most striking difference, as might be expected, came on foreign affairs. Lugar, long a respected Republican voice in the Senate on foreign policy, cited monumental success of the Nunn-Lugar Program in destruction or deactivation of thousands of weapons of mass destruction in the old Soviet Union, including nuclear-armed missiles once aimed at us.

Mourdock countered that funds went to Russia for this and maybe Russia thus could have saved money that it now sends to Syria.

Mourdock advocated a more belligerent stance toward Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. And he complained that the Senate should not have ratified the New START treaty with Russia so quickly.

Lugar, a supporter of the treaty, said ratification without further delay was in the best interests of the United States because it provided again for "boots on the ground" inspections for compliance in Russia.

Support for ethanol was another area of disagreement, with Mourdock contending that it adds to gas prices and Lugar saying it "makes the overall price go down" and is "a Hoosier product with Hoosiers producing it on farms here."

There were some subtle reminders of differences.

When Mourdock praised a congressman's proposal on Medicare, Lugar quickly countered with praise for Gov. Mitch Daniels' efforts. Daniels has endorsed Lugar, calling him the "most significant public official in the last century in our state, quite possibly the greatest senator ever to serve from our state." Lugar wants to stress his long association with Daniels, who is highly popular with the Republicans who will be voting in the May 8 primary.

Mourdock steered clear of attacking Lugar as not really a Hoosier, a charge made by some Mourdock supporters, instead using subtle but obvious reference to Lugar's residence in the Washington area. "I am proud to call this state home," said Mourdock, who added that if elected senator, he wouldn't move.

Lugar refrained from getting into Mourdock's absences as state treasurer at various state board meetings, a matter hammered at by the Lugar campaign. Things were so civil that Lugar even referred to Mourdock as "my friend." Sure.

Mourdock sought to portray himself as actually having been reluctant to run against Lugar. Sure.

Neither needed to lash out in attack. Neither did.

Now, the TV ads will hit the air and hit the opponent, doing what the consultants say those ads need to do.

Jack Colwell is a columnist for The Tribune. Write to him in care of The Tribune or bye-mail at jcolwell@comcast.net.